The Ethanol Fallacy: Op-Ed
So why not build corn liquor stills on an industrial scale and use the output to power our cars and trucks?
That’s exactly what this country has been doing for the past several years. Some 134 ethanol plants are now in operation, consuming close to 1.6 billion bushels of grain, about 15 percent of our total corn production.
The entire ethanol debacle is a great case example to illustrate the folly of government intervention in the free markets.
And from philman_36's post:
...consuming close to 1.6 billion bushels of grain, about 15 percent of our total corn production.
An a little math by theymakemesick:
If 39 million bushels of corn produces 110 million gallons of ethanol annually,then 110,000,000 / 42 = 2,649,047 barrels annually. We consume about 20,000,000 barrels of petroleum per day in the USA. That plant produces about 13% of what we use in one day. 1.6 billion bushels total / 39 million bushels = 41. 41 X .13 = 5. So, we consume 15% of our annual corn production to offset 5 days worth of our petroleum consumption. This does not include the petroleum required to farm, fertilize, water or transort the corn. Great use of natrual resorces, not.
If ethanol was so great it would require no subsidies of any sort, just like with gasoline.
And the Ethanol scam is a drop in the bucket compared to the man made global warming scam. The loss of wealth is going to be staggering.
ping
No problem. Simply pass a law mandating 300 mpg automobiles,200 mpg semi-trucks, and R-1000 insulation in all homes, and all will be well.
This whole thing was a typical liberal proposition and a scam from day one.
The envirowhackos loved it because no matter the math, we were going to begin to get away from the hated “Big Oil”.
The farmers loved it because it was a market they could grow crops for.
The companies producing ethanol loved it because they were getting big breaks and subsidies to produce ethanol.
The politicians of all stripes loved it because they could pander to the envirowhackos, farmers, companies, Europeans and liberals with no negative effects.
The only people standing up and actually saying anything were the skinny crackpots with scraggly hair, suspenders and slide rules who actually took the time to analyze the whole thing and tried to tell the emperors they had no clothes. They were ridiculed and told to sit down.
Personally, I was too damn busy with other things to pay much attention to this issue, and remembered thinking “Hey, this is small potatoes here...even if it is wasteful, it is a piker of a program compared to other things.” Then, the next time I looked, I read about how everything from gas station pumps and tanker trucks to car engines had been involved in the process due to the destructive nature of the ethanol, and that HUGE plants with boxcars full of corn on specially built train tracks were making this stuff!
Then, I realized it was no coincidence that the price of a lot of other products such as milk, beef and cereals had been steadily rising for some time.
This whole thing was a typical liberal proposition and a scam from day one.
And it is TYPICAL of ANY government run program, replete with profligate waste, unintended consequences and unaccountable politicians. So this is what we want to do with our health care and industry?
We must put a stop to this.
This op-ed is an accurate depiction of what many of us in farm country already knew. Unfortunately, it was not politically correct to say so. McCain got hurt in the Corn Belt because of his opposition to ethanol subsidies - one of the positions I agreed with. In fact, the only family I know personally that had an Obama sign in the yard feeds heavily at the government trough via farm programs, and supported Obama solely because of ethanol subsidies...
hh
So, if all the gasoline now sold contains 10% ethanol, and it does here, is the price per gallon higher or lower because of the inclusion of subsidized ethanol?
I have used ethanol/gasoline blends in my vehicles on and off for years. I consistently get about 10% less miles per gallon using an ethanol blend than with using straight gasoline. If the purpose of making ethanol a motor fuel additive is to reduce oil consumption how does a 10% ethanol blend that gives 10% less miles per gallon save anything?
The Feds will push the biofuel fantasy until they drive the nation into the ground.
Freepers have known this all along. Interesting that some people are waking up to reality.
Typical Democrats, symbolism over substance. Perception over reality. They don’t get it now, they won’t get it in the future. One more reason Democrats should never be elected to a political office.
LoL. Here is the cherry on top. - “A Bipartisan Group of US Senators Calls on EPA to Refrain From Including Indirect Land Use Change in Biofuel Regulations”
17 March 2009 A bipartisan group of 12 US senators led by Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not to include calculations of indirect land use change (ILUC) effects as contributors to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for biofuels in the upcoming rulemaking for implementation of the updated Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS-2) enacted in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007.
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS-2) defined within the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires biofuels to meet specified life-cycle greenhouse gas emission reduction targets to qualify. The law specifies that life-cycle GHG emissions are to include “direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes, as determined by the Administrator.”
Depending upon the assumptions and boundary conditions set in the ILUC evaluation, the result can dramatically increase the calculated GHG footprint of a biofuel, far offsetting the presumed greenhouse gas benefits of its use.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/03/bipartisan-group-of-us-senators-calls-on-epa-to-refrain-from-including-indirect-land-use-change-in-b.html